wallyhs
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc144096(VS.85).asp...
https://www.stilldrinking.org/5-reasons-waiting-tables-is-a-...
Someone trying to explain how Islam doesn't encourage terrorism is on the defensive. The accusation has already been made. But the accusation doesn't make sense if the religion has no life of its own and exists only in the medium of individuals.
It's tough to defend against an accusation that doesn't make sense. If we can't point out what is bad, what is there to defend? The whole thing has a guilty-until-proven-innocent feeling to it. If the prosecutor can't make a sound case, there should be no need for a defense in the first place.
Anecdotally, the people I know who claim that Islam encourages terrorism don't know much about it. What they do know is shallow and cherry-picked, and any decent explanation immediately goes into the "it's different, so it's bad" bucket. It must be very difficult to demonstrate anything to these people.
We do retail alcohol in addition to restaurant food, so we have a lot of items on our menu. I don't like how the menu is organized, but it would be too slow and painful to reorganize at this point.
I would kill for an API so that I could make mass numbers of menu edits by script. I would require some sort of a testing environment for that, though.
The contention is between wildlife activists and ranchers. Wolves tend to feed on livestock. You can imagine how upset a rancher gets when his assets disappear in the middle of the night.
http://www.mtexpress.com/news/environment/bear-grabs-sleepin...
"A Boise hunter sustained minor wounds when a black bear grabbed him by the head while he was sleeping in the open along the Middle Fork of the Salmon River last week."
"He said that before the men went to sleep on the night of the attack, they had stowed all their food in a box on their raft."
"Jon Rachael, state wildlife manager for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, said unprovoked attacks by black bears are rare, and it’s impossible to say what motivated this one. He guessed that either the bear had become conditioned to people by finding food around them or perhaps was just curious, and grabbed Vouch’s head to see what it was."
> I immediately exclude discussion of company, title, and salary, because these are the things people think they want but can't really affect my decision.
> So by stating that these three things, company, title, and salary, are already taken care of, it frees candidates to think about what really matters to them.
This is a one-time event for me, because the same forest won't burn again in my lifetime. The chance of my house being destroyed by a wildfire in any ten-year period is practically zero.
Note that high deserts also burn, and the wind moves those fires along at a frightening pace. Forest and desert are pretty much the only choices in places like Idaho or Montana.
However, after I did this, I had to find build targets that Visual Studio installed and copy them from my workstation into the same directory on the server (i.e. C:\Program Files (x86)\MSBuild\Microsoft\VisualStudio\v11.0\WebApplications).
Exceptions or not, if you have an unknown error condition, how can you assume anything?
I apologize for the delayed response.
Why? If corruption leads to an exception, it seems relevant. Corruption could be the application's own fault, it could be failing hardware, it could be someone trying to exploit a vulnerability. It could be anything - a result of undefined behavior. Sorry if I'm using the term loosely.
> If half your app just overwrote the other half of your app, no matter what we say here is going to make any difference.
If it overwrote the other half, it should crash immediately. I can't just display an error message and retry the operation in that case. If I don't know what exception I'm handling, how can I be sure that I won't cause more damage by handling it?
> The other part (and in my opinion the important part) of exception handling is ensuring your stack unwinds correctly.
That is not what I was referring to. A program can still get into an inconsistent state with exceptions. For example, if a function updates half of some data structure and then throws, that data structure may be left in an inconsistent state. Of course you should not write functions that way, but it is an easy mistake to make. Do you really want your app to keep running in an inconsistent state?
I'm looking at it from a defensive, assume-the-worse perspective. If my application is in an inconsistent state, it should cease running immediately. If my application does not know which state it is in, it must assume that it is in an inconsistent state.
I don't understand this viewpoint. If a file is locked, the user may be able to fix it, so go ahead and display an error. But if there is corruption, then what is the user going to do? You can't tell them, "Restore your system from backup, and then click OK." Your program has to crash before it causes more problems.
What if the situation is stack corruption or heap corruption? Or what if the error left the application in an inconsistent state? Continuing to run might corrupt the user's data. What if an attacker caused the corruption in order to gain unauthorized access? Logging or displaying the error might be exactly what they want.
I often see variations of this advice: If you don't know how to handle it, don't catch it. By definition, you don't know how to handle an unknown exception.
> Put MSDN away, you don't need it.
I think it is a good idea to understand the behavior and failure modes of every API function that you call; this requires that you consult the documentation.
People seek out natural things such as plants. They put them in their homes, they hang paintings of them on their walls, and they decorate their cubicles with them. I don't think it is surprising that people want green lawns. It is depressing to live in a brown world.
The answer seems to be to design _better_ lawns: plant grasses, shrubs, and trees which grow naturally in the area, do not require huge amounts of water, and are drought-resistant. I don't know about LA, but, in my area, this transition has been underway for years.
In that type of environment, I think it is absolutely worth the flexibility. And "building in" that kind of flexibility means to, um, add a line to the existing configuration file.
I did not mean to endorse anything.
> The folks who are qualified to write articles and papers on the topics that might interest you, do exactly that.
How could you possibly know who is qualified and who is not? Given that the authors of submitted articles frequently comment on HN themselves, it must be true that at least some HN comments are made by qualified people. But that assumes that writing an article is the sole requirement for being "qualified". Not all articles are written by qualified people. Additionally, many articles are watered down by journalists, and HN threads can provide broader perspectives.
> There is no inherent value in wasting intellectual effort on an HN comment.
There is as much inherent value as there is in wasting intellectual effort in a conversation at a dinner party. If I am talking to someone whose life experience is completely different from mine, I am learning something even though they are not rising to the level of their capabilities. I am allowed to learn subjects superficially out of curiosity and without the blessing of an authority figure. I have to choose who to listen to and who to ignore just like I do with other sources of information such as HN submissions.
Asking for sources in response to an unfounded claim is common on HN. I've never seen anyone called naive, greedy, and lazy for it, though. At any rate, asking for a source does not preclude one from researching the topic separately.
I agree that HN should not be put on a pedestal. Neither should the submissions.